Edit preset (overwrites stored settings)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds extra value by disclosing atomic application of changes and the fact that it selects the preset before editing. This provides context beyond the structured fields, though it could elaborate on reversibility or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the atomicity and persistence details. The bracketed note '[needs preset/save build]' is cryptic but does not bloat the overall length. Each sentence earns its place, though the note could be clearer.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the destructive nature, nested 'changes' object, and absence of an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on return values, prerequisites, and side effects. It mentions atomicity and selection but omits what the user gets back and what exactly requires 'preset/save build', leaving significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain the 'name', 'type', or 'changes' parameters, leaving the schema (with no descriptions) as the only source of meaning. It mentions 'named preset' and 'settings' but does not clarify the structure of 'changes' or the role of 'type'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool edits a named preset's settings and persists them, with explicit steps (selects, applies changes atomically, saves under same name). This distinctly separates it from siblings like save_preset, delete_preset, and rename_preset. The title reinforces the overwriting behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for modifying existing presets by saying 'saves under the same name' and 'selects it', but it does not explicitly exclude creation or rename scenarios. It lacks an explicit pointer to alternatives like save_preset for new presets or rename_preset for renaming, so the guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.